Ads
related to: washington court rules summary judgment act
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. 578 (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case on the issue of "faithless electors" in the Electoral College stemming from the 2016 United States presidential election.
In United States federal courts, a denial of summary judgment cannot be appealed until final resolution of the whole case, because of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (the final judgment rule). To defeat a summary-judgment motion, the non-moving party only has to show substantial evidence that a dispute of material ...
Rule 56 deals with summary judgment. It is considered the last gate-keeping function before trial, answering the question of whether the claim could even go to a jury. A successful summary judgment motion persuades the court there is no "genuine issue of material fact" and also that the moving party is "entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
Early federal and state civil procedure in the United States was rather ad hoc and was based on traditional common law procedure but with much local variety. There were varying rules that governed different types of civil cases such as "actions" at law or "suits" in equity or in admiralty; these differences grew from the history of "law" and "equity" as separate court systems in English law.
In Washington, there are several state courts. Judges are elected and serve four-year or six-year terms. Most judges first come to office when the governor of Washington appoints them after a vacancy is created – either by the death, resignation, retirement, or removal of a sitting judge, or when a new seat on the bench is created by the Washington State Legislature.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), was a landmark Supreme Court case that established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel's inadequate performance.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a party, particularly a corporation, may be subject to the jurisdiction of a state court if it has "minimum contacts" with that state. [1]
United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974), aff'd, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975), commonly known as the Boldt Decision (from the name of the trial court judge, George Hugo Boldt), was a legal case in 1974 heard in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.